HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 233 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opp. party nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Meerut in S.T.No. 533 of 2022, State Vs. Sohanvir and others, by which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist for summoning of prospective accused persons namely, Neelam and Ravinder has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned, while passing the order dated 21.11.2023 has considered the testimony of p.w.-2, p.w.-3 and p.w.-4 respectively, but the said testimony has been considered in a cursory manner. Prior to passing this order, an earlier order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was based on testimony of single witness p.w.-1, who was one of the injured witnesses and the application of the revisionist was dismissed without summoning the prospective accused, Neelam and Ravinder. Thereafter, the revisionist preferred a Criminal Revision No. 3535 of 2022. After hearing on the revision, this Court has passed the following order:- "Considering the aforesaid pronouncements it is clear that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.C.Srivastava, G.A. Ajay Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. Though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, but it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It has to be keep in mind that since it is a discretionary power given to the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge-sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner" and it was directed that as and when the evidence of other witnesses is complete, then the order be passed on the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist. The testimony of p.w. 2, p.w.3 and p.w.-4 has been completed and based on the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, the present order dated 21.11.2023 has been passed. Learned counsel for the revisionist summits that the said order has been passed without taking into consideration and going through the complete statements of witnesses therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opp. party nos. 2 and 3 submits that the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Meerut is in accordance with law, wherein the testimony of the witnesses has been fully considered and examined and only then, the order impugned has been passed. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed, pursuant to the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 3535 of 2022. Having considered the rival contentions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Meerut has passed the order impugned based on the statements of p.w.-2. p.w.-3 and p.w.-4 and p.w.-1 also. It is further submitted that sufficient material has been collected during investigation and at the same time, the name of opp. party nos. 2 and 3 were dropped. CRLR No. 233 of 2024 2 However, the said material is a subject matter to be examined during trial. 5. The p.w.-2, p.w.-3 and p.w.-4 have categorically stated the name of 9 persons separately, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Meerut. It appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken few sentences and lines from the statements of witnesses i.e. p.w.-2, p.w.-3 and p.w.-4 while passing the order impugned and did not bother to look into the statements of witnesses in entirety rather than has gone on presumptions and assumption. 6. In view of the above, the present revision is allowed and the order 21.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Meerut in S.T.No. 533 of 2022, State Vs. Sohanvir and others, is hereby quashed and learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned is directed to pass the order afresh in accordance with law. September 16, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 233 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad